I think Billyard is a little confused about recent Canadian history. Specifically, he doesn't know the difference between the two Quebec referenda, on the one hand, and the Meech and Charlottetown accords.

The most notable secession movement has been in Quebec as its desire to separate has been ongoing. Had the Meech Lake Accord (or the subsequent Charlottetown Accord) passed a referendum we would be seeing a very different Canada today. Had it passed the maritimes would have been isolated and tempted to join the US. On the prairies, Saskatchewan premiers, Blakeney and Romanow, prepared contingency plans should Quebec win its referendum.

Meech and Charlottetown were about a new constitutional status for Quebec(with Charlottetown including other issues), not Quebec seccession.

Pierre Trudeau came out of retirement to actively oppose the Meech Lake Accord(1987). He did so because he realized if Quebec was granted “sovereignty association” it would only lead to similar demands from other provinces.

Meech Lake didn't grant Quebec "sovereignty-association"; that is what the PQ was offering Quebeckers in the 1980 referendum. Meech Lake granted Quebec "distinct society", with the province remaining in Confederation.

It is true that PET opposed the "Oui" side in both Quebec referenda, and both of Mulroney's constitutional accords, for roughly the same reason each time(ie. he didn't want that province to get ANY more power, inside or outside of Confederation). But they were still four distinct historical events.

Also, the majority of Quebecers do not want to separate from Canada and don't even want to discuss it. The subject is so unpopular that separatist political parties are afraid to talk about it. They are even afraid to call it separatism. They prefer to try confusing people into voting for separation and even that didn't work.

If by "them" you mean the Americans, well, I think Cascadia is meant to be independent of both Canada and the USA.

But yeah, there's not much point in Canadian nationalists fighting to keep or regain control over our resources, if they then just turn around and advocate making the land in question the property of some foreign jurisdiction.

I also think Cascadia would run into quite a bit of resistance down south. A lot of Americans likely won't take kindly to being told that the Union dead in the Civil War were martyred for a mistake. Even Confederate-flag wavers down in Dixie don't call for a separate country.

Yes, I mean that it would break the dam on water exports once and for all.

Similarly, those people sharing the article about progressive west coast states joining Canada probably don't realize that it would be the end of Canada. California alone has a greater population than we do, and while progressive people might have some values which are more in line with our country's, they are for the most part just as ignorant as those on the right of what makes our country different than America.

Similarly, those people sharing the article about progressive west coast states joining Canada probably don't realize that it would be the end of Canada.

Not joining Canada. BC leaving Canada and joining them. Likely the rest of Canada would also make choices as would the remaining states and the end result would be multiple nation states. Yes BC would be a small part of the whole in Cascadia but we are pretty used to that. Doubt that it would ever happen, but as a thought experiment it has merits.

Not to ignore the negatives, but California, Oregon and Washington have championed a lot of progressive ideals. California has taken a leadership role in adopting environmental standards. Oregon has established a number of progressive programs helping people out of poverty and homelessness. Portland has one of the best transportation systems around. Washington State is a leader in living wage discussions lead by Kshama Sawant - the first socialist elected in Seattle since 1916.

Yes, the gun toting militias in Oregon are pretty scary and there are tons of Trump lovers. It may be that there is more that seperates us compared to stuff that brings us together. However, sentiment of they are American and Americans are bad is just far too simplistic.

If Cascadia (or Texas for that matter) chose independance then it would by definition challenge many of the core American ideals and where that would go is anyone's guess.

They aren't that progressive. I don't think we want their copyright and patent laws or their healthcare regime any more than we want to have responsibility for Hanford Dump, which is in southern Washington. I don't think it would take too long before the very powerful business interests would turn us into just another one of their states - a poor one.

They aren't that progressive. I don't think we want their copyright and patent laws or their healthcare regime any more than we want to have responsibility for Hanford Dump, which is in southern Washington. I don't think it would take too long before the very powerful business interests would turn us into just another one of their states - a poor one.

You could be right but if the American west coast became part of Canada wouldn't they be ruled by the Canadian government thus making them subject to Canadian law?

As for progressive,those states mentioned are compared to every Canadian province east of BC.

Cascadia originally was the bioregion of BC, Washington and Oregon. With BC @4.4 million, Washington State @ 7.4 million and Oregon @ 4.1 million gives a combined population of 16 million which is very balanced. California @39.1 million of course shifts the political muscle. One would assume that the more radical right would vote with their feet, especially if collective principles were constitutionally enshrined - why else would BC be interested.

You could be right but if the American west coast became part of Canada wouldn't they be ruled by the Canadian government thus making them subject to Canadian law?

As for progressive,those states mentioned are compared to every Canadian province east of BC.

They'd be part of Canada, i.e. entitled to vote for members of parliament, and a solid majority of the country. It'd be the biggest rightward shift in Canadian history.

Canadians like to look at media depictions of San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, and envision the American west coast as potential NDP country. Don't forget that California was also the state that elected Ronald Reagan (and later Arnold Schwarzenegger) as governors, that all three states have the death penalty, that Bakersfield, California is somewhere to the right of Red Deer politically...

It's not even a matter of cities versus the hinterlands: Orange County, LA's wealthy suburb, is among the most conservative counties in the entire United States. If California alone became a Canadian province, Canada would never have another non-Conservative federal government.

You could be right but if the American west coast became part of Canada wouldn't they be ruled by the Canadian government thus making them subject to Canadian law?

As for progressive,those states mentioned are compared to every Canadian province east of BC.

They'd be part of Canada, i.e. entitled to vote for members of parliament, and a solid majority of the country. It'd be the biggest rightward shift in Canadian history.

Canadians like to look at media depictions of San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, and envision the American west coast as potential NDP country. Don't forget that California was also the state that elected Ronald Reagan (and later Arnold Schwarzenegger) as governors, that all three states have the death penalty, that Bakersfield, California is somewhere to the right of Red Deer politically...

It's not even a matter of cities versus the hinterlands: Orange County, LA's wealthy suburb, is among the most conservative counties in the entire United States. If California alone became a Canadian province, Canada would never have another non-Conservative federal government.

Thank you for pointing out that this ' cascadia' is a horrible idea. But I welcome all the progressive Americans (in which there are very few) to make the move up here. Maybe that way we can never have a Conservative government again.

They better keep that money mill running day and night if Cascadia is going to follow a Canada-style health care plan. And if they aren't then "Cascadians" living in B.C. might want to go get their appendix removed prophylactically while they can.

Naysaying "awesome" ideas like Cascadia always feels like being tasked with telling an 11-year old that they're too old to keep believing in Santa Claus.

Most options I see including California were only including Northern California (low population - similiar economies to the rest of Cascadia. Including all of California (and all of Canada for that matter) is only useful if you are looking to build a case for not doing it.

There's also the fact that the "Cascadia" depicted in the original "Ecotopia" was far from inclusive. Other than the indigenous population(whose existence was kind of "folkloric", people of color didn't exist in that Cascadia...and we can assume they turned away all immigrants and refugees.

Including all of California (and all of Canada for that matter) is only useful if you are looking to build a case for not doing it.

Well, it's not for me to say who's in or who's out -- that would be up to Cascadia. But those of us who don't live in "pre-Cascadia" saying that it's only for NORTHERN Californians is just as silly. Cascadia doesn't even exist yet, and already they have to say "Sorry" to refugees from L.A.?

Where is there a rule that says that Seperatists have to take anyone who wants to join. Could PEI go with Quebec?

Hey it is only a thought project that is not likely going to go further. I remember reading about it in the Saturday Vancouver Sun - back when a Saturday paper was a thing. Kind of a they don't understand us thing blended in with examples of a shared culture. Then Trump came and everyone wants on board...

I'm trying to think if there has ever been a previous case of a nation being carved out from existing nations, based on informal ideological similarities among the population in the seceding area(s), rather than religious or ethnic compatibility.

The closest I can think of is the Confederacy during the US Civil War, but they were united by a distinct and over-arching economic system(to put it somewhat euphemistically), not just by a general outlook. And obviously, they didn't get what they wanted.

Plus of course, the two Germanies, two Koreas, and the formerly two Vietnams, but they were created by external powers, and I don't think were or are generally regarded as permanent nations by their inhabitants.

And considering the DDR was suckered back in to the BRD by economic pressure (including trading west marks for ostmarks at par) I don't think it was a case of everyone having a vision of one nation. There are a lot of reasons why they might have done better to remain as their own nation.

And considering the DDR was suckered back in to the BRD by economic pressure (including trading west marks for ostmarks at par) I don't think it was a case of everyone having a vision of one nation. There are a lot of reasons why they might have done better to remain as their own nation.

Yeah, I was referring to the original division(hence "created by external powers"), not to the reunification. The postwar division was, technically, ideological, but the reunification was ethnic.

Also when Czechoslovakia split was there any military or religous justifications for the split?

IIRC, it was mainly ethinc-the Czechs had never treated the Slovaks as equals in the federation-and had actually slandered the Slovaks in the Communist era by implying that Slovaks were collectively responsible for the pro-Nazi Tiso regime in Slovakia(in reality, that regime was caused by the Nazi invasion and there was little if anything the Slovak people could have done to prevent it).

One of the lesser-known motivations of the Stalinist wing of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in supporting the "Warsaw Pact Intervention" in August 1968 was that Alexander Dubcek, the reform leader who had humanized the federation by accepting the "Prague Spring" process of free speech, open-mindedness and democratization, was the first Slovak to head to serve as First Secretary of the Party-all his predecessors in the job had been Czechs.

Cascadia is a non starter especially if it included California. There is something to be said for a country from Alaska to Washington. Most of Oregon and all of California are not in the Pacific northwest ecosysytem so it would be an arbitrary line anyway. However if one were to start dreaming of a progressive country I would be supporting this one.

a) how many people who live within the boundaries of a proposed, potential Cascadia support the idea of Cascadia?

b) how many people who live outside those boundaries support Cascadia for their own reasons (i.e. not "I support whatever the people of Washington choose" but "I live in Ontario, but I still want this")?

I do believe kropotkin nailed it. Besides cco, 6079, and others pointing out the difference between political reality and thought experiments.

Yup, his is a good idea. Of course the other way this could play out is progressive cities flexing their muscle. Not to say they'd ever become city states like Bremen, Hamburg or Berlin, but there are a lot of precedents for it, starting with the Hanseatic Bund.

And we already have seen it with cities refusing to implement some of Trump's anti-immigrant policies, and states showing up at climate conferences and declaring they are still in the game, despite what is going on in Washington.